Acara19
CCA Members
Does anyone have some they're willing to give up or know where I can get some?
WTB cryptoheros spilurus
- Thread starter Acara19
- Start date
jonclark96
Past CCA President
I have not seen them available in the hobby for several years. Good luck in your search! They are cool little fish.
Acara19
CCA Members
Dare I say, I'm somewhat hoping chetumalensis gets synonymized with spilurus so I can rest a bit easier, though I feel they're going to find enough of a genetic difference to where they'll remain separate species. I'd imagine for such a basal genus those slight differences in each species could've had more than enough time to drift apart from eachother genetically.
jonclark96
Past CCA President
I don't know much about the genetics of the two fish, but from purely visible physical characteristics, they are not the same fish. The spilurus I had (Jeff Rapps imported them some years ago) were a steel blue/gray coloration. Chetulmensis have a base tan/yellow color from my experience, and much more resemble cutteri than spilurus.
Acara19
CCA Members
Going off appearance alone I would agree, the breeding dress of chetumalensis is also very different from that of spilurus, though I have heard word that chetumalensis may be classified as a regional variant of spilurus among the recent wave of reclassifications based on genetics. I thought HRPs had enough of a physical difference to where they'd end up being their own species as well, but as it turns out they're genetically identical to/just a regional variant of nigrofasciata. However, going back to what I said about the actual taxonomy of amatitlania vs cryptoheros, amatitlania is a very evolutionarily young genus vs cryptoheros which is allegedly very basal among the amphilophine evolutionary tree, so like I said slight differences may hide even greater genetic differences.
dogofwar
CCA Members
There are "C. spilurus" out there but without known provenance. The last C. spilrus in the hobby of which I'm aware were the C. spilrus from Rio Blanco, Hondurus that Rusty Wessel, Ken Davis and others brought back from a collecting trip circa 2006. I had them and bred them back in the day. A nice gold fish that was relatively peaceful.
That said, there is significant doubt as to whether C. spilurus, C. cutteri, C. chetumalensis are different species or just variants of a single species.
From Cichlid Room Companion (https://cichlidae.com/species.php?id=203):
Schmitter- Soto (2007) has proposed the splitting of Cryptoheros spilurus in more than once species (adding Cryptoheros chetumalensis Schmitter-Soto, 2007 as a new species), as well as the recognition of Cryptoheros cutteri (Fowler, 1932) as a valid taxa. While this last proposal seems plausible and has the agreement of many Central American Cichlid specialists, and in spite of the fact that the meticulous and technically flawless paper of Schmitter-Soto establish a diagnosis for the populations splitting, there is no consensus on the recognition of Cryptoheros chetumalensis as a valid taxa different from Cryptoheros spilurus, as the diagnostic traits given can be expected as normal variation between Central American cichlid populations in many species.
In other words, the (alleged) differentiating characteristics among these fish are less than the natural variations within populations (as measured by folks like Michi Tobler).
That said, there is significant doubt as to whether C. spilurus, C. cutteri, C. chetumalensis are different species or just variants of a single species.
From Cichlid Room Companion (https://cichlidae.com/species.php?id=203):
Schmitter- Soto (2007) has proposed the splitting of Cryptoheros spilurus in more than once species (adding Cryptoheros chetumalensis Schmitter-Soto, 2007 as a new species), as well as the recognition of Cryptoheros cutteri (Fowler, 1932) as a valid taxa. While this last proposal seems plausible and has the agreement of many Central American Cichlid specialists, and in spite of the fact that the meticulous and technically flawless paper of Schmitter-Soto establish a diagnosis for the populations splitting, there is no consensus on the recognition of Cryptoheros chetumalensis as a valid taxa different from Cryptoheros spilurus, as the diagnostic traits given can be expected as normal variation between Central American cichlid populations in many species.
In other words, the (alleged) differentiating characteristics among these fish are less than the natural variations within populations (as measured by folks like Michi Tobler).
Acara19
CCA Members
Ah I see, then in that case my first assumption that they will eventually be synonymized is most likely true. If I recall true chetumalensis is only recognized from one locale, which would then lead back to the old Honduran red point argument saying how only the ones from Rio danli (Rio Los almendros) were recognized as Honduran red points in spite of "siquia" having very similar localities, when in the end they were all just the same species. I have seen pictures of spilurus locales with the same features as what is recognized as chetumalensis from other locales, with the same honey colored bodies, orange throats and pointy faces, so I would assume it's the same case as the HRPs.
Acara19
CCA Members
I keep seeing the steel blue ones online and always wondered where they were from.
dogofwar
CCA Members
Just about every stream in Central America has a "convict" and/or a "splilurus" - each could probably be its own species if you squint hard enough!
Acara19
CCA Members
So I've heard. I hope to one day get out there and bring more variety into the hobby. I have heard of completely red panamensis and nanolutea-yellow sajica, and I'm sure from what I've seen there's probably completely blue spilurus somewhere.
